|
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Jack Woehr
<jwoehr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Java is very safe, you have to know the collection classes, they're
complicated. You can always do what you need to do.
I think we have very different ideas about what "safe" means.
Your argument seems to be: As long as the programmer really knows the
ins and outs of a language's complicated constructs, the programmer
can take steps to avoid getting themselves into trouble; and therefore
that language is "safe".
By this argument, what languages AREN'T safe?
John Y.
--
This is the IBMi Open Source Roundtable (OpenSource) mailing list
To post a message email: OpenSource@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/opensource
or email: OpenSource-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/opensource.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.